原发性进行性失语变异患者的相关言语改变和进展。

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurology Pub Date : 2025-05-13 Epub Date: 2025-04-07 DOI:10.1212/WNL.0000000000213524
Elisa Canu, Federica Agosta, Laura Lumaca, Silvia Basaia, Veronica Castelnovo, Sofia Santicioli, Stefano Pisano, Elena Gatti, Alessandra Lamanuzzi, Edoardo Gioele Spinelli, Giordano Cecchetti, Francesca Caso, Giuseppe Magnani, Paola Caroppo, Sara Prioni, Cristina Villa, Stefano F Cappa, Massimo Filippi
{"title":"原发性进行性失语变异患者的相关言语改变和进展。","authors":"Elisa Canu, Federica Agosta, Laura Lumaca, Silvia Basaia, Veronica Castelnovo, Sofia Santicioli, Stefano Pisano, Elena Gatti, Alessandra Lamanuzzi, Edoardo Gioele Spinelli, Giordano Cecchetti, Francesca Caso, Giuseppe Magnani, Paola Caroppo, Sara Prioni, Cristina Villa, Stefano F Cappa, Massimo Filippi","doi":"10.1212/WNL.0000000000213524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Diagnosing the different variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is challenging, but more accurate characterization can improve patient management and treatment outcomes. This study aimed to identify the following: (1) which speech features, alone or combined with language assessment and gray matter volumes (GMVs), best distinguish PPA variants and (2) how connected speech evolves in PPA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study was conducted at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy, between 2010 and 2021. We included patients with PPA who underwent neuropsychological assessments, including standard evaluation of language and the \"Picnic Scene\" speech test, and, when available, brain structural MRI. Clinical and language assessments were also performed at follow-up in a subgroup. Sequential feature selection models identified speech parameters that best differentiated groups, incorporating age, sex, education, standard language tests, and GMVs. In each PPA group, linear mixed-effect models analyzed speech changes over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 95 patients with PPA (mean age 69 ± 9 years, 55 women [58%]; 40 with nonfluent variant PPA [nfvPPA], 35 with semantic variant PPA [svPPA], 20 with logopenic variant PPA [lvPPA]), of whom 82 underwent brain MRI and 34 had a follow-up visit after 10.2 months. Each model distinguished svPPA from the other PPA groups with high accuracy (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> range 0.93-1.00; <i>p</i> < 0.001). No differences in accuracy were observed among models for this distinction. In differentiating nfvPPA and lvPPA groups, the models incorporating speech parameters (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.92; <i>p</i> < 0.001), GMVs (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.95; <i>p</i> < 0.001), and their combination (speech + GMVs; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.97; <i>p</i> < 0.001) outperformed those using only standard language scores (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.75; <i>p</i> = 0.01). Over time, patients with nfvPPA showed more phonological errors, the svPPA group exhibited more semantic and morphosyntactic errors along with difficulties in naming and syntax production, and patients with lvPPA exhibited reduced number of words per second and fewer words per sentence.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>All models were equally effective in distinguishing the svPPA group from the other 2 PPA subtypes. However, compared with using standard measures alone, incorporating speech measures from the \"Picnic Scene\" speech test, GMVs, or their combination into the models significantly improved accuracy in differentiating nfvPPA and lvPPA groups. The PPA variants showed distinct speech trajectories. These variables can aid in understanding disease progression, predicting patient outcomes, and planning speech therapy interventions in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":19256,"journal":{"name":"Neurology","volume":"104 9","pages":"e213524"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11974258/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Connected Speech Alterations and Progression in Patients With Primary Progressive Aphasia Variants.\",\"authors\":\"Elisa Canu, Federica Agosta, Laura Lumaca, Silvia Basaia, Veronica Castelnovo, Sofia Santicioli, Stefano Pisano, Elena Gatti, Alessandra Lamanuzzi, Edoardo Gioele Spinelli, Giordano Cecchetti, Francesca Caso, Giuseppe Magnani, Paola Caroppo, Sara Prioni, Cristina Villa, Stefano F Cappa, Massimo Filippi\",\"doi\":\"10.1212/WNL.0000000000213524\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Diagnosing the different variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is challenging, but more accurate characterization can improve patient management and treatment outcomes. This study aimed to identify the following: (1) which speech features, alone or combined with language assessment and gray matter volumes (GMVs), best distinguish PPA variants and (2) how connected speech evolves in PPA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study was conducted at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy, between 2010 and 2021. We included patients with PPA who underwent neuropsychological assessments, including standard evaluation of language and the \\\"Picnic Scene\\\" speech test, and, when available, brain structural MRI. Clinical and language assessments were also performed at follow-up in a subgroup. Sequential feature selection models identified speech parameters that best differentiated groups, incorporating age, sex, education, standard language tests, and GMVs. In each PPA group, linear mixed-effect models analyzed speech changes over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 95 patients with PPA (mean age 69 ± 9 years, 55 women [58%]; 40 with nonfluent variant PPA [nfvPPA], 35 with semantic variant PPA [svPPA], 20 with logopenic variant PPA [lvPPA]), of whom 82 underwent brain MRI and 34 had a follow-up visit after 10.2 months. Each model distinguished svPPA from the other PPA groups with high accuracy (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> range 0.93-1.00; <i>p</i> < 0.001). No differences in accuracy were observed among models for this distinction. In differentiating nfvPPA and lvPPA groups, the models incorporating speech parameters (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.92; <i>p</i> < 0.001), GMVs (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.95; <i>p</i> < 0.001), and their combination (speech + GMVs; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.97; <i>p</i> < 0.001) outperformed those using only standard language scores (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.75; <i>p</i> = 0.01). Over time, patients with nfvPPA showed more phonological errors, the svPPA group exhibited more semantic and morphosyntactic errors along with difficulties in naming and syntax production, and patients with lvPPA exhibited reduced number of words per second and fewer words per sentence.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>All models were equally effective in distinguishing the svPPA group from the other 2 PPA subtypes. However, compared with using standard measures alone, incorporating speech measures from the \\\"Picnic Scene\\\" speech test, GMVs, or their combination into the models significantly improved accuracy in differentiating nfvPPA and lvPPA groups. The PPA variants showed distinct speech trajectories. These variables can aid in understanding disease progression, predicting patient outcomes, and planning speech therapy interventions in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurology\",\"volume\":\"104 9\",\"pages\":\"e213524\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11974258/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000213524\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000213524","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:诊断原发性进行性失语症(PPA)的不同变体具有挑战性,但更准确的特征可以改善患者的管理和治疗结果。本研究旨在确定以下内容:(1)哪些语音特征单独或结合语言评估和灰质体积(gmv)最能区分PPA变体;(2)PPA中连接语音是如何演变的。方法:这项前瞻性研究于2010年至2021年在意大利米兰的IRCCS圣拉斐尔医院进行。我们纳入了接受神经心理学评估的PPA患者,包括语言标准评估和“野餐场景”语言测试,如果有的话,还进行了脑结构MRI。临床和语言评估也在一个亚组的随访中进行。顺序特征选择模型确定了最能区分群体的语音参数,包括年龄、性别、教育程度、标准语言测试和gmv。在每个PPA组中,线性混合效应模型分析了语音随时间的变化。结果:我们纳入了95例PPA患者(平均年龄69±9岁,女性55例[58%];40例为非流利变体PPA [nfvPPA], 35例为语义变体PPA [svPPA], 20例为语义缺失变体PPA [lvPPA]),其中82例行脑MRI检查,34例随访10.2个月。每个模型将svPPA与其他PPA组区分开来的准确率很高(R2范围0.93-1.00;P < 0.001)。在此区分的模型之间,没有观察到准确度的差异。在区分nfvPPA和lvPPA组时,纳入语音参数的模型(R2 = 0.92;p < 0.001), gmv (R2 = 0.95;p < 0.001),以及它们的组合(speech + gmv;R2 = 0.97;p < 0.001)优于仅使用标准语言分数的患者(R2 = 0.75;P = 0.01)。随着时间的推移,nfvPPA患者出现更多的语音错误,svPPA组出现更多的语义和形态句法错误,以及命名和句法产生困难,lvPPA患者表现出每秒单词数减少和每句单词数减少。讨论:所有模型在区分svPPA组与其他2种PPA亚型方面都同样有效。然而,与单独使用标准测量相比,将“野餐场景”语音测试的语音测量、gmv或它们的组合纳入模型,显著提高了区分nfvPPA和lvPPA组的准确性。PPA变体显示出不同的语言轨迹。这些变量有助于了解疾病进展,预测患者预后,并在临床实践中规划言语治疗干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Connected Speech Alterations and Progression in Patients With Primary Progressive Aphasia Variants.

Background and objectives: Diagnosing the different variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is challenging, but more accurate characterization can improve patient management and treatment outcomes. This study aimed to identify the following: (1) which speech features, alone or combined with language assessment and gray matter volumes (GMVs), best distinguish PPA variants and (2) how connected speech evolves in PPA.

Methods: This prospective study was conducted at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital in Milan, Italy, between 2010 and 2021. We included patients with PPA who underwent neuropsychological assessments, including standard evaluation of language and the "Picnic Scene" speech test, and, when available, brain structural MRI. Clinical and language assessments were also performed at follow-up in a subgroup. Sequential feature selection models identified speech parameters that best differentiated groups, incorporating age, sex, education, standard language tests, and GMVs. In each PPA group, linear mixed-effect models analyzed speech changes over time.

Results: We included 95 patients with PPA (mean age 69 ± 9 years, 55 women [58%]; 40 with nonfluent variant PPA [nfvPPA], 35 with semantic variant PPA [svPPA], 20 with logopenic variant PPA [lvPPA]), of whom 82 underwent brain MRI and 34 had a follow-up visit after 10.2 months. Each model distinguished svPPA from the other PPA groups with high accuracy (R2 range 0.93-1.00; p < 0.001). No differences in accuracy were observed among models for this distinction. In differentiating nfvPPA and lvPPA groups, the models incorporating speech parameters (R2 = 0.92; p < 0.001), GMVs (R2 = 0.95; p < 0.001), and their combination (speech + GMVs; R2 = 0.97; p < 0.001) outperformed those using only standard language scores (R2 = 0.75; p = 0.01). Over time, patients with nfvPPA showed more phonological errors, the svPPA group exhibited more semantic and morphosyntactic errors along with difficulties in naming and syntax production, and patients with lvPPA exhibited reduced number of words per second and fewer words per sentence.

Discussion: All models were equally effective in distinguishing the svPPA group from the other 2 PPA subtypes. However, compared with using standard measures alone, incorporating speech measures from the "Picnic Scene" speech test, GMVs, or their combination into the models significantly improved accuracy in differentiating nfvPPA and lvPPA groups. The PPA variants showed distinct speech trajectories. These variables can aid in understanding disease progression, predicting patient outcomes, and planning speech therapy interventions in clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neurology
Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
1973
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurology, the official journal of the American Academy of Neurology, aspires to be the premier peer-reviewed journal for clinical neurology research. Its mission is to publish exceptional peer-reviewed original research articles, editorials, and reviews to improve patient care, education, clinical research, and professionalism in neurology. As the leading clinical neurology journal worldwide, Neurology targets physicians specializing in nervous system diseases and conditions. It aims to advance the field by presenting new basic and clinical research that influences neurological practice. The journal is a leading source of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed information for the neurology community worldwide. Editorial content includes Research, Clinical/Scientific Notes, Views, Historical Neurology, NeuroImages, Humanities, Letters, and position papers from the American Academy of Neurology. The online version is considered the definitive version, encompassing all available content. Neurology is indexed in prestigious databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biological Abstracts®, PsycINFO®, Current Contents®, Web of Science®, CrossRef, and Google Scholar.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信